Document Type

Article

Major

Molecular & Cell Biology, History

Mentor

Prof. Charles Lansing, Dept. of History

Disciplines

History | History of Science, Technology, and Medicine | Military History

Abstract

This research examines the different American perspectives surrounding the morality and future of chemical warfare during and after World War I. Using primary sources collected at the National Archives at College Park, it argues that the Chemical Warfare Service survived not because Americans agreed that poison gas was morally acceptable, but because wartime mobilization created scientific expertise, military facilities, and relationships that made dismantling the service after the war difficult. While opponents emphasized moral and humanitarian concerns, advocates defended chemical warfare through arguments about preparedness, military necessity, and claims that gas was more humane than conventional weapons. The paper also examines the limitations and weaknesses of early international attempts to prohibit chemical warfare. Finally, it compares possible parallels with the growing use of AI and autonomous weapons in the military. The comparison does not treat the two technologies as equivalent but instead highlights the difficulty of restricting controversial weapons once institutions have invested in their development and use and integrated them into military structures.

Comments

The author wishes to thank Professor Charles Lansing for his guidance and support throughout this project, as well as for his thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The author is also deeply grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Holster for their generous support of the Holster Scholar Program and for funding the archival travel that made this research possible. Finally, the author thanks the Holster Scholar Program, The Holster Scholar Program Committee, and the University of Connecticut Honors Program for providing this incredible opportunity.

Download

Share

COinS